> 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads
I think this is an important point. If coke and pepsi were not allowed to advertise, they could only compete on price and quality.
This is clearly a win for consumers. For coke and pepsi, maybe a small to moderate loss of revenue? But then their costs would definitely go down (no advertising spend), so it wouldn't necessarily be a net loss even for them.
They can (and do) also compete on exclusive deals with places who sell soda. I'd wager it's more important than competing on ads, because what are people gonna do at a pepsi or coke exclusive place, not drink soda?
I'm sorry but the free market idea that's lurking in the argument is naive, when contrasted to our current (and past, and projected future) reality.
I think this is an important point. If coke and pepsi were not allowed to advertise, they could only compete on price and quality.
This is clearly a win for consumers. For coke and pepsi, maybe a small to moderate loss of revenue? But then their costs would definitely go down (no advertising spend), so it wouldn't necessarily be a net loss even for them.